That's the trivial solution. The Scandinavian solution is to make your welfare good enough that growing up poor doesn't make you so malnourished that you can't take advantage of an education, and to make your education system sufficiently well supported that even poor kids in poor neighbourhoods can get a good education.
Social mobility in Scandinavia is a lot higher than it is in the US - where income is more heritable than height.
Poor choices imposed by poor support while growing up. If you don't get enough of the right food as a kid, you can't take full advantage of what education is on offer. Where the schools in poor neighbourhoods are resourced to cope with the problems of the poor kids that use them, dropping out of high school becomes a lot more likely, and having a kid out of wedlock becomes the only accessible career choice.
Emigrate to Scandinavia early enough, and you'll be much less likely to do any of them.
As they are in Scandinavia.
It's the Republicans who don't want to spend money on job-creation. They want any stimulus spending to go to their constituents, despite the fact that if you've got money already, you are less likely to spend the stimulus money you get, killing the Keynesian multiplier.
One of James Arthur's more persistent mantra's. Scandinavian governments can spend welfare money effectively, but US governments can't (according to James Arthur - of course, right-wing administrations do have a vested interested in spending welfare money ineffectively as a justification for not spending it at all).
What James Arthur can tell is restricted by what his right-wing ideology allows him to see. More liberalism and a better safety net hasn't produced a generation without fathers in Scandinavia. There may be more unmarried mothers, but with better support policies the fathers are more willing to stick around and help with the kids, and the bad effects of absent fathers are compensated by better schools and child-care.
But adequate welfare and good schools work pretty well too.
John Larkin also believes in extreme greenies who advocate depopulation as a useful way of reducing CO2 emissions. I'm not sure that any actually exist. It is one of those trivial solutions - no people = no anthropogenic global warming - that serve to make a rhetorical point, but it doesn't feature in any policy proposal that I've ever come across.
The US federal government may have fifty inadequate work-training programs. Denmark takes the job more seriously, and theirs seem to work.
The Cato Institute predictably emphasises the inadequacy of US work-training programs. It doesn't seem to have noticed that other countries have done better.
Australia had a 99% employment rate in the 1950's. Some employees needed more supervision than others, but industrial safety doesn't seem to have been threatened - though this is the period when people started taking it more seriously.
It's been tried, and doesn't seem to work. Industrial cooperatives work, but they look much more like regular organisations - the workers are effectively share-holders, and get to make their voices heard at the annual general meeting. for the rest of the year they do what their managers tell them.
With better welfare and schools - as in Scandinavia - it becomes a much smaller segment of society.
Or her.
Not all that aggressively. The tax take in the US is about 30% of the national income. It's 55% in Sweden, 50% in France and 45% in Germany.
Effective welfare and good schools are expensive, but they do make for a productive economy. Germany exports almost as much as the US, with only a quarter of the population.
China exports about half again more than Germany and the US - a lot of it to the US - with perhaps four times the population of the US and 16 times the population of Germany. Once China trains it's workers to the point where they can demand decent wages, the situation will become more complicated. There are third world countries around to be exploited, but nowhere near enough to replace China.